[PATCH] ARM: Do not allow unaligned accesses when CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2011-05-25 11:14:08
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:13:31PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:26:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:quoted
BTW, are we sure that the code generated with unaligned accesses is better? AFAIK, while processors support unaligned accesses, they may not always be optimal.The code gcc generates to synthesise an unaligned access using aligned accesses is pretty simplistic:
...
For code which natively needs to read unaligned fields from data structures, I sincerely doubt that the CPU will not beat the above code for efficiency... So if there's code doing unaligned access to data structures for a good reason, building with unaligned access support turned on in the compiler seems a good idea, if that code might performance-critical for anything.
gcc generates unaligned accesses in the the pcpu_dump_alloc_info()
function. We have a local variable like below (9 bytes):
char empty_str[] = "--------";
and it looks like other stack accesses are unaligned:
c0082ba0 <pcpu_dump_alloc_info>:
c0082ba0: e92d4ff0 push {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp, lr}
c0082ba4: e3074118 movw r4, #28952 ; 0x7118
c0082ba8: e24dd04c sub sp, sp, #76 ; 0x4c
c0082bac: e34c402a movt r4, #49194 ; 0xc02a
c0082bb0: e58d1014 str r1, [sp, #20]
c0082bb4: e58d0020 str r0, [sp, #32]
c0082bb8: e8b40003 ldm r4!, {r0, r1}
c0082bbc: e58d003f str r0, [sp, #63] <----------- !!!!!
c0082bc0: e59d0014 ldr r0, [sp, #20]
c0082bc4: e5d43000 ldrb r3, [r4]
I haven't tried with -mno-unaligned-access, I suspect the variables on
the stack would be aligned.
--
Catalin